Citation NR: 9623033
Decision Date: 08/16/96 Archive Date: 08/28/96
DOCKET NO. 94-11 796 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
J. R. Bryant, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from April 1970 to November
1971.
This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board)
of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on appeal from an
adverse rating determination of November 1993, by the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Regional Office (RO) which denied
entitlement to service connection for PTSD.
REMAND
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991 &
Supp. 1995), a person who submits a claim to the VA has the
burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief
by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well-
grounded. A well-grounded claim is one that is plausible;
that is, it is meritorious on its own or capable of
substantiation. King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). If the
person meets this burden, the VA is obligated to assist in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim. Murphy v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App.
91 (1993).
Here the medical record contains several diagnoses of PTSD,
and because of these diagnoses, the Board finds that the
veteran's claim is plausible, thus well-grounded.
Accordingly, the VA is obligated to assist in the development
of the claim.
The veteran specifically contends that he has PTSD as a
result of his military service in Vietnam. In essence, the
disputed matter concerning service connection for PTSD
relates to the sufficiency of the evidence corroborating the
occurrence of an adequate "stressor" during the veteran's
service. An award of service connection for PTSD requires
that a current diagnosis be established. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.304(f) (1995). Furthermore, an essential prerequisite
for a diagnosis of PTSD is that there has been a verifiable
"stressor," defined as a life-threatening circumstance or
other event that is outside the range of usual human
experience and that would be markedly distressing to almost
anyone. See Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91, 98-99 (1993).
While diagnoses of PTSD have been recorded on several
occasions, the record still contains inadequate information
pertaining to the veteran’s involvement in actual combat
activity in Vietnam or, if no actual combat is documented,
documentation of events constituting stressors for PTSD.
The veteran indicated during a personal hearing in June 1990
that he was exposed to trauma as a door gunner for the 117th
aviation unit. While the veteran's military records confirm
he had service in Vietnam from October 1970 to November 1971,
there was no reference to combat duty per se. For example,
his decorations do not include any awards for actual combat
or for valor in combat and the records confirm that the
veteran's military training and service was directly related
to both of his military occupational specialties (MOS) in the
noncombat areas of military police and aircraft fuel
specialist. The MOS of aircraft fuel specialist was the last
duty assigned to the veteran according to service personnel
records.
As stated previously the record before the Board contains
medical opinions, including an August 1993 VA examination
report, that the veteran’s psychiatric disability is properly
diagnosed as PTSD. The 1993 VA examination report indicated
that he reported recognizable stressors experienced in
specific combat situations. The principal event singled out
as a stressor by the veteran included an incident in which a
helicopter was in the process of taking off with a close
friend aboard, the helicopter caught fire and crashed to the
ground. He said he stood by helplessly while his friend,
screaming in pain, burned to death. He could not recall the
friend’s name and did not give the precise date of the
incident. He also claimed that while on duty he was involved
in and automobile accident in which two Vietnamese civilians
were killed. He watched as they were run over by a truck and
felt bad because he actually caused the accident but had left
the scene before giving a report. In a letter dated in June
1993, the RO requested further details from the veteran
concerning the circumstances of military service, including
the nature and extent of all combat and the specifics of the
events claimed as PTSD stressors. The veteran’s response was
essentially the same.
The events cited in vague terms by the veteran as PTSD
stressors are alleged to have occurred during a period of
service in Vietnam from October 1970 to November 1971. The
veteran’s enlisted qualification record confirms that while
in Vietnam he served with the 222nd Aviation Battalion
USARPAC and with the 117th Aviation Company (assault
helicopters) USARPAC. An inquiry to the United States Army
and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG) could
potentially confirm whether either of these units were
involved in actual combat. Also an attempt should again be
made by VA to extract from the veteran the specific
information required for verification of his alleged
stressors through ESG.
A review of the clinical diagnosis of PTSD should be
undertaken in light of the difficulties encountered in
confirming a stressor. The diagnostic conclusions of record
were based on information received from the veteran himself
concerning experiences during military service. The VA is
not obligated to accept diagnoses based on uncorroborated
information. Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 614 (1992) and
Wood. v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190 (1991). Consequently the
Board finds that, following completion of the additional
development requested herein, the complete record should
again be reviewed by a psychiatrist, if PTSD is again found,
the manifestations should be described in the detail, the
stressor should be identified, and the evidence accepted to
document the stressor should be indicated.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
development:
1. The RO should request that the
veteran provide another comprehensive
statement containing as much detail as
possible regarding the stressor(s) to
which he alleges he was exposed to while
in service. The veteran should be asked
to provide specific details of the
claimed stressful elements during
service, such as dates, places, detailed
descriptions of events, and any other
identifying information concerning any
other individuals involved in the events,
including their names, ranks, units of
assignment, or any other identifying
detail. The veteran is advised that this
information is vitally necessary to
obtain supportive evidence on the
stressful events and he must be asked to
be as specific as possible. He should be
informed that, without such details, an
adequate search for verifying information
cannot be conducted. He should be
further advised that a failure to respond
may result in an adverse action against
his claim.
2. Thereafter, the RO should contact the
Director, National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), ATTN: NCPNA-O,
9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri
63132, and request copies of the morning
reports for the veteran's unit pertinent
to the events identified in the statement
of the appellant. The RO should also
attempt to obtain the operational
reports, lessons learned statements, or
any other information regarding
activities of the veteran's unit during
the time frame cited that would shed
light on the events related by the
appellant. When this information has
been obtained, it, together with the
stressor information that has been
provided/obtained from the veteran,
should be forwarded to the United States
Army and Joint Services Environmental
Support Group (ESG), 7798 Cissna Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22150, for
verification of the incident or incidents
which the veteran reports he re-
experiences. Any information obtained is
to be associated with the claims folder.
3. The veteran should be referred for an
examination to ascertain the nature of
all current psychiatric pathology. All
indicated tests and studies should be
conducted and all findings should be
reported in detail. If the veteran is
found to have PTSD, the symptoms and
other factors which support the diagnosis
should be specifically itemized. It is
imperative that the claims file be made
available to the examiner for use in the
study of the case.
4. After the development requested above
has been completed, the RO should again
review the record. If the benefit sought
on appeal remains denied, the veteran and
his representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case. The veteran need take no action unless
otherwise notified.
RIPLEY P. SCHOENBERGER
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1995).
- 2 -